Vision and pvaluesPeople do not share the same vision.
(Already told that here by painting me on the wall somethime...) ;-)
Here's a good read talking about a group of people that see things diferently than all the sheeps...
Opinion saying that markets are NOT always right...
Efficient Market Hypothesis (EMH) – The Theory of Speculation:
An investment theory that states that it is impossible to "beat the market" because existing share prices already incorporate and reflect all relevant information. (ha ha ahh ha aa)
The EMH is a highly controversial and often disputed theory. Supporters believe it is pointless to search for undervalued stocks or try to predict trends in the market through any technique from fundamental to technical analysis, since an individual could achieve superior results from randomly picking stocks from a hat.
On the other hand, academics point to a large body of evidence in support of EMH. This includes the fact that since the balance of investors value stocks differently, it is impossible to ascertain what a stock "should" be worth in an efficient market. Also, investors such as Warren Buffett have consistently beaten the market.
Article: https://financial-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Efficient+Market+Hypothesis+-+EMH
The efficient market hypothesis states that it is not possible to consistently outperform the market by using any information that the market already knows, except through luck. Information or news in the EMH is defined as anything that may affect prices that is unknowable in the present and thus appears randomly in the future.
Skeptics of EMH argue that there exists a small number of investors who have outperformed the market over long periods of time, in a way which is difficult to attribute to luck, including Peter Lynch, Warren Buffett, George Soros, and Bill Miller. These investors' strategies are to a large extent based on identifying markets where prices do not accurately reflect the available information, in direct contradiction to the efficient market hypothesis which explicitly implies that no such opportunities exist. Among the skeptics is Warren Buffett who has argued that the EMH is not correct, on one occasion wryly saying "I'd be a bum on the street with a tin cup if the markets were always efficient" and on another saying "The professors who taught Efficient Market Theory said that someone throwing darts at the stock tables could select stock portfolio having prospects just as good as one selected by the brightest, most hard-working securities analyst. Observing correctly that the market was frequently efficient, they went on to conclude incorrectly that it was always efficient." Adherents to a stronger form of the EMH argue that the hypothesis does not preclude - indeed it predicts - the existence of unusually successful investors or funds occurring through chance. In addition, supporters of the EMH point out that the success of Warren Buffett and George Soros may come as a result of their business management skill rather than their stock picking ability.
Warren Buffett, Peter Lynch, and George Soros all made their fortunes exploiting differences between market valuations and underlying economic conditions. This notion is further supported by the fact that all stock market operators who regularly appear in the Forbes 400 list made their fortunes working as full time business people, most of whom received college educations and adhered to a strict stock picking philosophy they developed at a relatively early age. If "throwing darts at the financial pages" were as effective an approach to investment as deliberate financial analysis, one would expect to see casual, part time investors appearing in rich lists as frequently as professionals like George Soros and Warren Buffett.
Article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efficient_market_hypothesis